It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Veteran is arrested for NOT shooting a wanted felon...

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Military Veteran’s AR-15 Confiscated by Police – But the Reason Why Is the Real Story


Military veteran Corey Thompson, 36, told KDRV-TV that the wanted felon was trying to beak into his home via the back door. Defending his property, Thompson said he warned the criminal that he was armed and he was giving him his one and only warning shot.

“This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” Thompson said. Wielding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the veteran made good on his threat and fired one warning shot. The bullet did not strike the suspect or anyone else.

So lets take a step back.

A wanted felon is attempting to break into your home. He has outstanding warrants for burglary and assault. You give him an opportunity to leave your premises and even give him the courtesy of a WARNING SHOT.

I mean how many of us would be calm, cool and collected enough to handle the situation with this much restraint?

As usual the police arrive after the fact. Whats the saying, "when seconds count, police are minutes away".

The home owner was awarded a medal, correct? Treated like a hero? NO. He was arrested, had his firearm confiscated and faces criminal charges...

I'm sorry, but I think there is an obvious message that they are sending. They dont want you to be able to protect yourselves. Even when its done RESPONSIBLY.

They want you to be a helpless victim dependent on the State even if your life is in danger.


edit on 29-5-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
and if he would have shot the intruder then he would likely be facing charges for not giving a warning shot. but lets not worry lets just ask the government to ban intruders



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
This is disgusting. People are gonna stop putting up with this soon enough...

I hope.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   


1. They dont want you to be able to protect yourselves. Even when its done RESPONSIBLY.

2. They want you to be a helpless victim dependent on the State even if your life is in danger.


You forgot the most important thing they don't want.

3. They don't want you to have the ability to protect yourself from them when it's come to the breaking point for the people.

Because it IS going to break...and they know it. The police are getting more militarized each day in anticipation of the break.



2.2billion rounds for DHS. 2700 armored personnel carriers for any police force requesting. More and more non violent situations being responded to with SWAT in full riot?

Of course they don't want you to be able to defend yourself. Especially against them and Especially if you possess training.

Peace


edit on 29-5-2013 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Glen Beck as a honest source, seriously, really? If this story is true as written, and I will look for other sources, it is a travesty. If this is Glen Beck looking for more web traffic, he is a bigger d-bag than I gave him credit for being.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


it's true a story, the other thread has a local news story about it.
so there is more than just beck.
ETA
here's the link to the thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 29-5-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I'm sure this is a standing order at all departments now. If you see a rifle, confiscate it. Especially if its in the hands of someone trained how to use it effectively, like a veteran.

And could the media please stop using the term "semi-automatic" rifle, ffs? That's like saying "bullet-firing rifle". Its a totally unnecessary and sensationalistic term used only to frighten the stupid.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Its almost better to just let him get in and waste him, stab his lungs so they do not inflate, wrap chain around him, attach blocks, leave at night, toss over bridge. That way you don't go to jail. I imagine it is easier then we think to dispose of a body and not get caught. IMO it just takes calmness, balls and patience. But people usually get scared and make mistakes.

So do you dispose of the body and not call the cops or to you risk being thrown in jail and all your guns confiscated.

Sad Sad Sad world we live in.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by antiobama
Its almost better to just let him get in and waste him, stab his lungs so they do not inflate, wrap chain around him, attach blocks, leave at night, toss over bridge. That way you don't go to jail. I imagine it is easier then we think to dispose of a body and not get caught. IMO it just takes calmness, balls and patience. But people usually get scared and make mistakes.

So do you dispose of the body and not call the cops or to you risk being thrown in jail and all your guns confiscated.

Sad Sad Sad world we live in.


As unfortunate as it is, I simply cannot see how this won't eventually be true. Fudge, it already is.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You are usually brought into the police station for questioning if a gun is discharged by you when a person breaks in. You may have to spend the night in jail but 99 percent of the time you aren't charged with anything.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I live in Jackson County Oregon where this happened. I also happen to be a vet, just like him. However he should have known better that you NEVER fire a warning shot, shoot to kill. He made a mistake telling the cops he was "trying to protect his property" He should have said he was trying to protect himself first of all. And secondly unfortunately for him Oregon Law is very clear that you are not allowed to fire warning shots. Is it a stupid law yes it is.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



The home owner was awarded a medal, correct? Treated like a hero? NO. He was arrested, had his firearm confiscated and faces criminal charges...

If he did this in Afghanistan he would have been awarded the Courageous Restraint Medal. For a civil to get a medal he/she must be victimized and/or killed.

When it comes to US citizens the government has no place for heroes...only victims.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”
(from the link in the OP)

*cough cough splutter splutter*
Say what? That came out of a police officers mouth


How many peaceful people are murdered by cops every year?

You couldn't make it up.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

shut the front door! you mean to say the same police who argued that they have no duty to protect individual citizens are jailing someone for not practicing his right to defend his life and property with lethal force?

well...i suppose it makes sense. (most) police shoot first and ask questions later, so it isn't much of a surprise that they would find not acting with lethal force a criminal act.

isn't it interesting that the person who knows what it's like to kill is the one showing compassion, even when the recipient doesn't deserve it?

it isn't uncommon for one to fantasize about being the hero saving the day and killing the bad guy, but those who have actually been through it know it isn't a glamorous prospect.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

He had not broken in yet, so he had not committed a crime that warranted the discharge of a firearm. The fact that this man is a “veteran” or that the other guy was a past “felon” have zero bearing on what laws were broken, and are added to the article to evoke an emotional response to the reader in order to slant opinion.

I guess that the folks who go around putting sales flyers on peoples doorknobs better be careful around this guys house.

Edit to add:

www.commonsensefororegon.com...
Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an “imminent deadly threat” to either the homeowner or the homeowner’s family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner’s family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 5/30/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by StoicMystic
 


when that day comes i will be surprised for the first time.....i mean look at how much we have put up with so far and we keep letting it happen...as long as they keep giving us our toys to play with, nobody will stand up to any of them. just the way i see it.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

He had not broken in yet, so he had not committed a crime that warranted the discharge of a firearm. The fact that this man is a “veteran” or that the other guy was a past “felon” have zero bearing on what laws were broken, and are added to the article to evoke an emotional response to the reader in order to slant opinion.

I guess that the folks who go around putting sales flyers on peoples doorknobs better be careful around this guys house.

Edit to add:

www.commonsensefororegon.com...
Currently in Oregon, a homeowner is only allowed to use deadly force against an intruder if the intruder posed an “imminent deadly threat” to either the homeowner or the homeowner’s family. This means that Oregon law forces a homeowner to choose between protecting him/herself and/or the homeowner’s family, and deciding whether an intruder poses an imminent deadly threat.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 5/30/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


Big star for this post. So refreshing to see an oasis of reason and intelligence amidst the desert of stupidity and ignorance.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Confiscate all the guns.

Robers breaking and entering have the right to be safe and secure in their job.

Everyone is entitled to workplace safety.

New health care laws require safe environments to keep the insurance premiums low and within reason of ordinary folk.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 

Thanks.

reply to post by SQUEALER
 

Each state has the right to set its own gun and criminal laws. Obviously the majority of the folks living in Oregon do not agree with your opinion on the matter, as they have never passed a “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” law. If you disagree with following the law passed by the majority in a specific state, you have the constitutional right to lobby to change it, or move to a state with laws more to your liking.

In this specific case, this gentleman broke his state law and will be charged accordingly. It makes no difference what the “other guy was maybe up to” or “what he had done in the past” (which there would have been no knowledge of at the time anyway), he is responsible for his own violation of the law regardless. As a gun owner he is responsible for knowing his local and state gun laws and acting accordingly. If he had wanted to live in a state that would have allowed broader “use of firearm” laws, he should have moved to Florida, Texas, etc...



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Shouldn't punishment only occur if something bad had actually happened here?

Yes he shot a warning shot... but no one was hurt, right?

Why take time and energy away from him when all he did was react??
It's not like he was the one trying to break into somebody's house or anything...




top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join